Trending TV Today

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or what 'trending' specifically means in this context. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'trending' means, how results are determined, what data is returned, and how to interpret the results. The current description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns complex TV show data with ranking/trending information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'page' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'trending TV shows of the day', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trending_tv_week' or 'trending_all_day', which would require mentioning the specific time frame 'today' as a distinguishing factor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple trending tools available (trending_all_day, trending_movie_day, trending_tv_week), there's no indication of when this specific TV-focused daily trending tool is preferred over those other options.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.